<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/29/2024 12:14 PM, Carl Oppedahl
via Pct wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:220eef8d-5427-41e5-90fb-6398dd5aa5c5@oppedahl.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">a listserv member asks to post
anonymously ...<span
style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">No
matter how many PCT webinars I attend, I never seem to pick
up on the best practice for <b><i>when</i></b> (or if) to
delete an Applicant of Convenience. We do have occasion to
file PCT applications with an AoC for purposes of a country
where our clients would never file (MW specifically).
Historically, we have been filing a 92bis to remove the AoC
prior to any national phase filings, but I have been
wondering if that’s the best practice.</span></p>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>If you were to look up some AoC cases in Patentscope, I think
that the most commonly observed sequence of events is:</p>
<ul>
<li>AoC is established in the Request for only one designation
(e.g. MW).</li>
<li>A day or two later, a 92<i>bis</i> change request gets filed
to remove the AoC.</li>
</ul>
<p>The consequence of these events is that when the 18-month pub
happens, the AoC is not shown there.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>